Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

Thanks for the invitation Dicky, as you know I don't know whether there is freedom of choice but then neither do you but in terms of a conscious self which is what I think a soul is, those pushing the materialistic/deterministic line have to cross the explanatory gap as Alan continuously points out. So I am with Searle in saying that if the soul turns out to be a deterministic mechanism that would need to be demonstrated. I am very sympathetic with Chalmers who thinks science might not actually have the chops to ever explain consciousness.
What I feel we are being offered by Alan's opponents is either scientism or eliminationism where the conscious self is merely an illusion.

What I think cannot be ''determined'' in the reductionist materialist sense is the choice to follow God or reject him since God is not physical and this may extend to aspects in which God has a massive stake like morality, also not adequately described by science. Again great explanatory gaps remain between the Gene and altruism and altruism and immorality.

Is that (very) long hand for "I don't know"?

[Stranger]

This sounds as though it depends on the ''re running of time'' which is one of those bad speculative ideas.

I wasn't suggesting it was a practical possibility, it's a thought experiment to make the principle clear (well, to those who understand what a thought experiment is, anyway).

I thought I made it clear that we might have to, on the strength of actual demonstration concede the deterministic position.

It's a question of basic logic, not demonstration.

Is God determined though?

I can't comment on imaginary beings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wasn't suggesting it was a practical possibility, it's a thought experiment to make the principle clear (well, to those who understand what a thought experiment is, anyway).

It's a question of basic logic, not demonstration.

I can't comment on imaginary beings.

What about the mind though your argument rests on that being a singular entity?

[Stranger]

What about the mind though your argument rests on that being a singular entity?

What do you think 'singular entity' means in this context? If you're talking about whether it's entirely physical or is some combination of the physical brain and something else, then it really doesn't matter. The logic stands regardless because it makes no assumptions about the internal working of the mind. It's a 'black box' argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Thanks for the invitation Dicky, as you know I don't know whether there is freedom of choice but then neither do you but in terms of a conscious self which is what I think a soul is, those pushing the materialistic/deterministic line have to cross the explanatory gap as Alan continuously points out.

No, they don’t have to do that at all. Alan is wrong about that. It would be immensely interesting and useful if that gap could be crossed, but as the only verifiable knowledge we have is materialistic in its character “the conscious self” being a materialistic phenomenon is a reasonable default position from which to begin.

Alan on the other hand asserts this to be “impossible”, so the burden of proof is with him to justify his claim (something he’s shown no interest in doing except by proposing a series of logically false arguments, following which he then complains that logic itself is inadequate for the task but without proposing an alternative method for the job).

So I am with Searle in saying that if the soul turns out to be a deterministic mechanism that would need to be demonstrated.

Erm, surely the a priori problem would be to demonstrate the existence of a “soul” at all would it not before worrying overmuch about whether or not it’s deterministic in character?

I am very sympathetic with Chalmers who thinks science might not actually have the chops to ever explain consciousness.

Depends on whether he/you mean “science” as a method or our ability to apply it, but in any case even if “science” (ie, scientists) never finds an explanation that would provide no comfort at all to the woo merchants who would fill the explanatory gap with whatever faith beliefs happen to appeal most (“soul” etc). I’ve tried to explain this to Alan many times, but he seems to be unable to grasp the point.

What I feel we are being offered by Alan's opponents is either scientism or eliminationism where the conscious self is merely an illusion.

Not really. What you’re offered is reason and evidence (that Alan cannot or will not engage with), and yes – the colloquial experience of “free” will cannot be “free” in the way he fondly imagines it to be for reasons that have been set out and repeated endlessly here without rebuttal.

What I think cannot be ''determined'' in the reductionist materialist sense is the choice to follow God or reject him since God is not physical and this may extend to aspects in which God has a massive stake like morality, also not adequately described by science.

Blind faith claims.

Again great explanatory gaps remain between the Gene and altruism and altruism and immorality.

Not really (see Bill Hamilton et al: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton) but (yet again) any explanatory gap used to insert “god” is just, well, a god of gaps argument. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, they don’t have to do that at all. Alan is wrong about that. It would be immensely interesting and useful if that gap could be crossed, but as the only verifiable knowledge we have is materialistic in its character “the conscious self” being a materialistic phenomenon is a reasonable default position from which to begin.

Alan on the other hand asserts this to be “impossible”, so the burden of proof is with him to justify his claim (something he’s shown no interest in doing except by proposing a series of logically false arguments, following which he then complains that logic itself is inadequate for the task but without proposing an alternative method for the job).

Erm, surely the a priori problem would be to demonstrate the existence of a “soul” at all would it not before worrying overmuch about whether or not it’s deterministic in character?

Depends on whether he/you mean “science” as a method or our ability to apply it, but in any case even if “science” (ie, scientists) never finds an explanation that would provide no comfort at all to the woo merchants who would fill the explanatory gap with whatever faith beliefs happen to appeal most (“soul” etc). I’ve tried to explain this to Alan many times, but he seems to be unable to grasp the point.

Not really. What you’re offered is reason and evidence (that Alan cannot or will not engage with), and yes – the colloquial experience of “free” will cannot be “free” in the way he fondly imagines it to be for reasons that have been set out and repeated endlessly here without rebuttal.

Blind faith claims.

Not really (see Bill Hamilton et al: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton) but (yet again) any explanatory gap used to insert “god” is just, well, a god of gaps argument.

God of the Gaps? No, because I concede there could be a scientific explanation. Scientism? Definitely because the expectation is science WILL crack the problem, if you will, SCIENCE of the gaps.  Eliminationism....... which states that the self is an illusion? D.Dennett.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Avoidance of most of the rebuttals you were given noted. As for the rest:

God of the Gaps? No, because I concede there could be a scientific explanation.

No, the god of that gaps point is the response to your, “Again great explanatory gaps remain between the Gene and altruism and altruism and immorality”. Even if that was true, so what? What point did you think you were making other than the gap leaving reason to insert “god” etc?

Scientism? Definitely because the expectation is science WILL crack the problem, if you will, SCIENCE of the gaps.

You do so love that straw man don’t you. Can you think of anyone here who has ever, ever made that claim? Anyone?

Eliminationism....... which states that the self is an illusion? D.Dennett.

What are you trying to say here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Avoidance of most of the rebuttals you were given noted. As for the rest:

No, the god of that gaps point is the response to your, “Again great explanatory gaps remain between the Gene and altruism and altruism and immorality”. Even if that was true, so what? What point did you think you were making other than the gap leaving reason to insert “god” etc?

There are gaps that science could clearly fill and there are gaps where it doesn't look promising that it could. How for instance can science determine what the morally right thing to do is? or putting it another way, does morality equate to science?

God doesn't need to be fitted in to a physicalist frame work because He is the necessary entity.

[Alan Burns]

As I have pointed out many times, your notion of 'freedom' and daft phrases like 'conscious control of thought processes' are not only illogical, they don't even match everyday experience, if one does even as small amount of honest introspection. It's not even "the way it seems" except, perhaps, as an assumption that one would make if you've never paused for a moment to think about it, or looked inwards to what is actually going on in your mind.

These phrases you use above:
small amount of honest introspection
paused for a moment to think about it
looked inwards to what is actually going on in your mind
all contradict the logical deduction that at every event in our conscious awareness we could not possibly take a different path to what is dictated by the past events which brought us into the current state.  Since I apparently have no control over past events, what is it which can invoke the actions I am being asked to do?  What does the honest introspection? What pauses for a moment to think about it? What can look inwardly to what is going on in my mind?

[Stranger]

Scientism? Definitely because the expectation is science WILL crack the problem...

Well, given the track record of claims along the lines of "science will never explain X", it's not all that unreasonable as an expectation - nobody is claiming that it's a certainty. Basically, there are only three options:

• We will never fully explain the mind and consciousness.
• Science will one day provide a tested theory of the mind and consciousness.
• Some as yet undreamed of new methodology will be discovered that can robustly test ideas that goes beyond science and logic, and that will provide an explanation.

I wouldn't hold your breath for the third of those...

[Stranger]

These phrases you use above:
small amount of honest introspection
paused for a moment to think about it
looked inwards to what is actually going on in your mind
all contradict the logical deduction that at every event in our conscious awareness we could not possibly take a different path to what is dictated by the past events which brought us into the current state.

Baseless assertion. Where is the evidence or logical argument?

Since I apparently have no control over past events, what is it which can invoke the actions I am being asked to do?  What does the honest introspection? What pauses for a moment to think about it? What can look inwardly to what is going on in my mind?

Just how many times have you just mindlessly repeated this very same question?

Yet again: your mind does, based on your character, abilities, preferences, beliefs, hopes, fears, and so on (that are all the result of some combination of nature, nurture, and experience, i.e. the past), in response to what you are being asked to do. This is entirely self-consistent, unlike the gibberish and logical impossibilities that you are trying to convince us of by mindlessly repeating the same script over and over again.

Even if I hadn't got that self-consistent alternative, and I was forced to just say "I don't know", that would still not justify your illogical and ridiculous claims, so the question is utterly pointless anyway, you are just trying to shift the burden of proof.

Are you simply too dim to understand this, or is it that I'm right that you dare not allow yourself to question your decades old script? If neither, then what, exactly?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are gaps that science could clearly fill and there are gaps where it doesn't look promising that it could.

On what basis would argue that "it doesn't look promising"? Would not any other incredulous person in the past have said the same?   

How...

In this context questions beginning "how" lead inexorably to an argument from incredulity. Let's see shall we?

...for instance can science determine what the morally right thing to do is? or putting it another way, does morality equate to science?

And sure enough, there it is. I don't know. Nor do you. The pornt here is that you have no grounds to dismiss the possibility.

God doesn't need to be fitted in to a physicalist frame work because He is the necessary entity.

It's the belief "god", and the "necessary entity" argument is a busted flush for reasons that have been explained to you many times here.   

[Nearly Sane]

And sure enough, there it is. I don't know. Nor do you. The pornt here is that you have no grounds to dismiss the possibility.

In terms of determining what is 'morally right" which is what you are referring to here,  I'd argue that since there seem to be no grounds for thinking that 'moral rightness' is a factual thing as opposed to subjective, then it appears to be outside the scientific methodology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

On what basis would argue that "it doesn't look promising"? Would not any other incredulous person in the past have said the same?   

In this context questions beginning "how" lead inexorably to an argument from incredulity. Let's see shall we?

And sure enough, there it is. I don't know. Nor do you. The pornt here is that you have no grounds to dismiss the possibility.

It's the belief "god", and the "necessary entity" argument is a busted flush for reasons that have been explained to you many times here.

Belief or intellectual notion? whatever, it is non sequitur to our discussion here.
Nobody has refuted the argument for a necessary argument. All that was achieved by you is to try and refute the PSR by stating it didn't meet the PSR......I still laugh at that one.

[Stranger]

Nobody has refuted the argument for a necessary argument.

I've yet to see you to even set out the supposed argument in a coherent way...

All that was achieved by you is to try and refute the PSR by stating it didn't meet the PSR......I still laugh at that one.

Can't see why, it doesn't. What's the sufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason? Regardless, that's a side issue to the absurdities of the 'argument from necessity'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

In terms of determining what is 'morally right" which is what you are referring to here,  I'd argue that since there seem to be no grounds for thinking that 'moral rightness' is a factual thing as opposed to subjective, then it appears to be outside the scientific methodology.

Yes, just like aesthetics in general (of which I think morality is an offshoot, or perhaps a first cousin). I was thinking more of a more complete understanding of how we conclude “morally good/morally bad” than of a claim to “out there” objective values for such things that may or may not be discoverable.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Belief or intellectual notion? whatever, it is non sequitur to our discussion here.

Then perhaps you shouldn’t have just asserted “God” as your premise, but in any case neither belief nor “intellectual notion” have the status of facts – which was the point.
 

Nobody has refuted the argument for a necessary argument. All that was achieved by you is to try and refute the PSR by stating it didn't meet the PSR......I still laugh at that one.

Very funny. Not only was that “argument” never set out in coherent form but the dog’s breakfast of it you did attempt was easily rebutted just by identifying the various fallacies on which you relied for your justification (the argument from composition etc).

[Stranger]

Since I apparently have no control over past events, what is it which can invoke the actions I am being asked to do?  What does the honest introspection? What pauses for a moment to think about it? What can look inwardly to what is going on in my mind?

Just to emphasis the highlighted part of my previous post, let's say, for the sake of argument, that I have no idea at all.

Now what?

You are basically making the claim that it must be miraculous and that therefore your god must be involved. We are still left with a big, fat zero for the number of reasons why we should accept even the first of those claims. It is your burden of proof, as you are the one making the claims, so why should we believe you, or even take your claims in the least bit seriously?

What you need is solid evidence and/or a sound logical argument.

To date all you have provided is vague hand-waving, gibberish phrases (for example, about 'conscious control' and 'the present') and totally vacuous, unsupported claims that people's ability to reason is evidence. Just claiming that something is evidence, does not make it so.

Even the total lack of an evidenced or well argued explanation for something, does not mean that any old, totally unevidenced and unsupported by any reasoning, 'explanation', is somehow more likely.

So off you go, the work is all yours, it is not up to anybody else to provide an explanation for anything.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Even if I hadn't got that self-consistent alternative, and I was forced to just say "I don't know", that would still not justify your illogical and ridiculous claims, so the question is utterly pointless anyway, you are just trying to shift the burden of proof.

A point I have made to Alan many times, but with which he’s entirely unable or unwilling to engage. He still it seems clings to the wreckage of: “Tell me how X works then. You can’t? Ha! Therefore it must be Y” (“Y” having no justifying reason or evidence of its own at all).

I’ve even framed it as an analogy so he could grasp it (Vikings arguing about thunder) but still with no rejoinder. Ah well – that ‘s Alan: never apologise, never explain…   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've yet to see you to even set out the supposed argument in a coherent way...

Can't see why, it doesn't. What's the sufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason? Regardless, that's a side issue to the absurdities of the 'argument from necessity'.

So, once again an argument I somehow never made was somehow repeatedly refuted.
Please list these so called absurdities.

[Stranger]

So, once again an argument I somehow never made was somehow repeatedly refuted.
Please list these so called absurdities.

Not so much refuted as simply incoherent (in the way you put it) to begin with. Last time I recall talking to you about it, you were just arbitrarily claiming that somehow your god was 'necessary' and had some unexplained sufficient reason whereas the universe wasn't and didn't. You then kept asking what it was about the universe that was necessary without being able to answer the same question about this supposed god of yours or even being able to define what would count as 'necessary' or how we would know if we found such a thing. As I said, totally incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not so much refuted as simply incoherent (in the way you put it) to begin with. Last time I recall talking to you about it, you were just arbitrarily claiming that somehow your god was 'necessary' and had some unexplained sufficient reason whereas the universe wasn't and didn't. You then kept asking what it was about the universe that was necessary without being able to answer the same question about this supposed god of yours or even being able to define what would count as 'necessary' or how we would know if we found such a thing. As I said, totally incoherent.

So the argument isn't absurd merely my rendering of it....which apparently I didn't manage to render.
''What is it which is necessary about the universe?'' an absurd question? Not if someone has suggested it is necessary.

Also you've misunderstood what is being claimed. God isn't necessary because he's our homeboy as you seem to suggest. There has to be a necessary entity.....and THAT is what WE call God. The argument is what provides the sufficient reason as opposed to the brute statement the universe just IS....which has no sufficient reason and is the arbitrary statement par excellence.. The argument from contingency does not support the observed universe being the necessary being on account of the contingency involved.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So, once again an argument I somehow never made was somehow repeatedly refuted.
Please list these so called absurdities.

"It's magic innit" for starters.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"It's magic innit" for starters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASGgn8bNQuA&t=6s

[Stranger]

So the argument isn't absurd merely my rendering of it....which apparently I didn't manage to render.
''What is it which is necessary about the universe?'' an absurd question? Not if someone has suggested it is necessary.

Although your 'rendering' of it was particularly daft, I've yet to read a version of it that doesn't have problems.

Also you've misunderstood what is being claimed. God isn't necessary because he's our homeboy as you seem to suggest. There has to be a necessary entity...

Why? I mean, human understanding would suggest that the hierarchy of explanations has to 'bottom out' somewhere, by the idea of a 'necessary entity', something that, for some reason, couldn't not exist, seems incoherent in itself. What possible sort of thing would cause a contradiction if it didn't exist?

It seems to be another case of taking an unknown and trying to fill the gap with something that will lead you to the conclusion you want, while conveniently ignoring that it raises at least as many questions as it's supposed to answer.

...and THAT is what WE call God.

Yet the connection to any of the religious ideas about 'god' are always conveniently brushed aside or the attempts at making them work are ridiculous to the point of hilarity.

The argument is what provides the sufficient reason...

Except it simply doesn't. What is the sufficient reason? Unless you can explain exactly how it is even possible for the non-existence of something to cause a logical contradiction, you have no such reason.

The argument from contingency does not support the observed universe being the necessary being on account of the contingency involved.

So what do you think it is that the universe, that is the whole four-dimensional space-time object (as described by general relativity), is supposed to be contingent on?